قَالُوا نَفْقِدُ صُوَاعَ الْمَلِكِ وَلِمَنْ جَاءَ بِهِ حِمْلُ بَعِيرٍ وَأَنَا بِهِ زَعِيمٌ ﴿۷۲﴾ قَالُوا نَفْقِدُ صُوَاعَ الْمَلِكِ وَلِمَنْ جَاءَ بِهِ حِمْلُ بَعِيرٍ وَأَنَا بِهِ زَعِيمٌ ﴿۷۲﴾ قَالُوا فَمَا جَزَاؤُهُ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ كَاذِبِينَ ﴿۷۴﴾ قَالُوا جَزَاؤُهُ مَنْ وُجِدَ فِي رَحْلِهِ فَهُوَ جَزَاؤُهُ كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الظَّالِمِينَ ﴿۷۵﴾

﴾72﴿ Qaaloo nafqidu suwaa'al maliki wa liman jaaa'a bihee himlu ba'eerinw wa ana bihee za'eem
﴾73﴿ Qaaloo tallaahi laqad 'alimtum maa ji'na linufsida fil ardi wa maa kunnaa saariqeen
﴾74﴿ Qaaloo famaa jazaaa'u hooo in kuntum kaazibeen
﴾75﴿ Qaaloo jazaaa'uhoo manw wujida fee rahlihee fahuwa jazaaa'uh; kazaalika najziz zaalimeen

﴾72﴿ They said, 'We are missing the measure of the king. And for he who produces it is [the reward of] a camel's load, and I am responsible for it
﴾73﴿ They said, By Allah, you know well that we have not come to cause corruption in this land, nor have we ever been thieves
﴾74﴿ They said, then what is the punishment for the thief if you are lying
﴾75﴿ They said, the penalty for theft is for the one in whose possession it is found; thus is the recompense we give to the wrongdoers

[72] This verse is evidence that it is permissible to offer a reward (inʿām) for completing a lawful task, and it also supports the validity of offering a guarantee (kafālah) in such matters.
Question: Is it allowed to give a reward or make someone a guarantor in the case of a thief, when theft is a sinful act?
Answer 1: This statement was made by the brothers under the direction of Yusuf (peace be upon him). He already knew they were not thieves, so he phrased it as (جَاءَ بِهِ) – “whoever brings it back,” rather than saying (سَرَقَ) – “whoever stole it.” This subtle wording shows that it was not actually about rewarding a thief.
Answer 2: The phrase (لِمَنْ جَاءَ بِهِ) refers to the person who brings news about where the ṣuwāʿ (cup) is located, not necessarily the thief himself.
So the reward is for helping identify and retrieve the item, not for the act of theft itself. This preserves the lawfulness and ethical soundness of the arrangement.
[73] In this verse, their response is given in order to declare their innocence from theft and corruption.
The phrase (تَاللَّهِ) is an oath by Allah, used specifically with the name of Allah, and often in contexts of astonishment, strong emphasis, or deep emotion.
The phrase (لَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ) – “You surely know” – indicates that they had a prior record of honesty and upright conduct in Egypt.
They had not committed any injustice or betrayal during their previous stay.
It is even narrated that they would tie the mouths of their camels to ensure they wouldn't eat from anyone’s crops—highlighting their scrupulousness and honesty.
This reflects both their moral discipline and their desire to maintain a good reputation in a foreign land.
[74] That is, they were asked, “If it turns out that you are lying, then what should be the punishment for the thief?”
This question was posed by the instruction of Yusuf (peace be upon him) as part of his plan to retain his brother.
Otherwise, in normal legal proceedings, the punishment is not asked from the accused—this only served a strategic purpose.
Also, by asking this, they removed any suspicion or doubt that the authorities might be deliberately trying to frame them for theft in order to apply their own law upon them unjustly. Instead, the question made it seem like the punishment would be applied according to their own (the brothers') legal tradition, which gave them a sense of fairness and control.
[75] That is, according to the religion (Sharī‘ah) of Ya‘qūb (peace be upon him), the punishment for theft was that the thief would become a servant (slave) to the owner of the stolen item for one year.
Whereas, the law of Egypt prescribed that two types of financial compensations be taken from the thief.
The word (الظَّالِمِينَ) – “wrongdoers” – here refers to the act of theft, which is a form of oppression or injustice. By choosing the Sharī‘ah of Ya‘qūb (peace be upon him) to issue the ruling, it was done by divine revelation from Allah, and this choice superseded the Egyptian law (i.e., acted as a temporary naskh/cancellation for this case).
Or, it may also be understood that the sons of Ya‘qūb (peace be upon him) were only obligated to follow his Sharī‘ah, and not bound by the legal system of Egypt, which is why their own ruling was used.